Wouldn't you say it's a better policy to identify people's intelligence and positions asap?
To do that, we have to call someone out as soon as they make a perceived slip up, when they make inconsistent arguments, when they revise their position.

Nonetheless, in my opinion it's usually better debating style to attack the position held by the other person instead of its holder. Once you start laying into your opponent instead of your opponent's points, onlookers often tend to assume you're losing the argument, and you usually fail to win your opponent over to your side. Hence. most victories gained in this manner are Pyrrhic.

I think Simon's right on the money, here, and I think most of the better posters on the board do this anyway; many posters don't, of course, but you learn to sort the wheat from the chaff here pretty fast, and the job's made easier because the idiots are allowed free reign to expose their idiocies.

Nonetheless, in my opinion it's usually better debating style to attack the position held by the other person instead of its holder. Once you start laying into your opponent instead of your opponent's points, onlookers often tend to assume you're losing the argument, and you usually fail to win your opponent over to your side. Hence. most victories gained in this manner are Pyrrhic.